Which is better? OSX or Ubuntu?

Eric Dunbar eric.dunbar at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 00:09:51 UTC 2006


On 1/22/06, Sasha Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Dunbar wrote:
> >>3.)     Ease of installing additional hardware (Post OS Install)
> >
> >If it's not a bargain basement discount peripheral, Mac OS X! No
> >contest. If it's bargain basement, Ubuntu may include drivers.
> >
> Since when? Ubuntu offers drivers for high end parts as well. Here you
> are just wrng. I would out-of-the-box driver support is about the same
> in both.

Here is where _you_ are wrong (na-na-na-na-na). Non-bargain basement
peripherals come with drivers written for Mac OS X and Windows and
rarely Linux. Sometimes a compatible driver exists in Linux but it
often fails to include the full functionality of the peripheral. USB
802.11b/g dongles certainly being an exception, however.

> >>4.)     Ease of uninstalling no longer used hardware (Without OS Re-Install)
> >
> >There shouldn't be any difference. You should be able to simply unplug at will.
> >
> In OSX you would still have the drivers working though (I think). In
> Ubuntu hotplug should make sure that you don't.

It's the same in both systems.

> >>6.)     Ease of uninstalling no longer used software/games/etc.
> >
> >Slight advantage to Mac OS X. Drag and drop to the trash! Most Mac
> >applications come as a single "file" (it's actually a directory
> >(package) that's packaged into a single icon) so, to install them you
> >simply copy them to <insert favourite destination>. To delete, you
> >highlight the original icon (not an alias) and delete. Oftentimes I
> >have apps sitting on the desktop so when I'm done they simply go into
> >the trash.
> >
> I would say Ubuntu, because Synaptic is no harder to use.

This would suggest that it's the _same_ if Synaptic is _no harder_ to use!

> >>7.)     Overall security and resistance to Viruses, Trojans, etc.
> >
> >No difference AFAIK.
> >
> >>8.)     Ease of removal of Viruses, Trojans, etc.
> >
> >Not applicable. No known viruses or trojans for Mac OS X. Presumably
> >the same for Ubuntu.
> >
> There are a couple of viruses and trojans available for Linux, also for
> Mac OSX (I think) but it is so rare to get infected that it is a piece
> of exceptionally bad luc for it to happen, and you really don't have to
> worry about it with either.

Hmm. Mac OS X WINS. Ta da! NO, and I mean NO known viruses for Mac OS
X, and,  the only trojans that could possibly exist are those same
trojans that could exist for any and all other *nixes (which require
root/admin access to install ;-).

But, in all seriousness. No real difference since, for all practical
purposes, Ubuntu lacks viruses.

> >>9.)     Availability of GOOD software/games/etc.
> >
> >Define good. There's lots of good OSS (open source software), but, you
> >may be disappointed. Many bits and pieces are quite rough around the
> >edges.


> Mac OSX does have many games available for it, but they are expensive
> and hard to find. There are also the OSS games, which might install
> better there (haven't tried, don't know).

You may actually want to READ posts before replying ;-P:

I believe you quoted and I wrote: "

> >The commercial gaming actually exists on Mac OS X vs. virtually
> >non-existent on Ubuntu, and, given that you only have 128 (or 256) MB
> >of RAM and a 400 MHz G3 pretty much everything you're going to be able
> >to play you can buy for $5 on eBay anyway (Marathon, Diablo II,
> >etc.)!!

If I'm not mistaken $5 is not exactly "expensive". They may be hard to
find because they're OLD games but they sure as hell ain't $$$. A 1999
era Mac is not going to be running 2006 era games!

> >Caveats:
> >2. Your machine has USB 1.1, NOT 2.0. This means that your 120 GB HD
> >will transfer files at a glacial pace (about 1 MB/sec MAX) compared to
> >USB 2.0 or Firewire. If you can use Firewire (IEEE 1391) do so -- it's
> >faster than USB 2.0 in real world situations (technically USB 2.0 is
> >480 Mbps and Firewire is 400 Mbps but Firewire is a more robust
> >protocol, better able to sustain data transfers).
> >
> >
> I like USB 2.0 better, I suppose just personal preference. It gives me
> better results.

Surprising, though, you're right, it could be a preference thing (for
my purposes there's no difference between USB 2.0 and Firewire but
others have found significant speed and reliability differences*).

*Though, part of the reliability and speed difference may be that
Firewire devices have traditionally been "premium" (priced) so they're
also possibly made from better components than most USB 2.0 devices?

IIRC USB 2.0 has consistently underperformed against Firewire when
controlled comparisons were available (e.g. dual USB 2.0/Firewire
cases or same HD in USB 2.0 or Firewire case). Plus, Firewire 800 is
far superior to USB 2.0 for high speed connections (800 Mbps vs. a
theoretical max of 480 Mbps (which in real world situations performs
worse than the 400 Mbps Firewire)).

> >3. You can easily set up a dual-boot situation. I would advise at
> >least 3 GB for Ubuntu and the rest for OS X. For ease of installation,
> >install OS X first and partition the drive using the OS X installer to
> >have 3 GB (partition 1) and 7 GB (partition 2). Make sure that Ubuntu
> >gets installed onto the first logical partition. This way you can
> >sample both and see the advantages to both.
> >
> I would suggest 3GB is not nearly enough for Ubuntu. I tried to install
> it on a 4GB hard drive once and there was less than 50MB left by the
> time I finished. 10GB is a good starting point, in general.

I'm running Ubuntu on a 3 GB partition. Not much room, but, it's
enough for playing around. Plus, it's impractical to run a dual-boot
system on a 10 GB drive when one of the partitions is 10 GB ;-)

> >4. Regardless of what you do, upgrade your RAM. It takes PC-100
> >(cheap) RAM, has 2 slots and you can go up to 1 GB IIRC (check to see
> >what size DIMMs it needs to go to 1 GB... sometimes these Macs need
> >"low profile" DIMMs). 128 MB simply isn't enough for either Ubuntu or
> >OS X. You'll find that Ubuntu works a bit better than OS X in 128 MB,
> >but, the difference will start to diminish as you move up to 256 MB
> >and beyond.
> I disagree, it will be slow in both, but it will run.

With what do you disagree. That Ubuntu will work better than OS X in
128 MB of RAM or that more RAM won't help OS X? (I can confirm that
both of my statements are unequivocally correct)

> >6. If you run into problems, feel free to ask. There are lots of dual
> >Mac OS X-Ubuntu users out there (it's a natural fit given that OS X is
> >Unix-based (they no-longer say Unix-like) and Ubuntu is Unix-like, and
> >both are open source (one more so than the other ;-)).
> >
> Mac OSX is not opes source. It is closed source. And just because it is
> Unix based makes no difference. The interface, package management, etc.
> is all quite different.

Sasha, respectfully I must suggest you do not know of what you speak:

Mac OS X _is_ open source, just not all of it! And, the similarities
between the OS DO make a difference.

If Mac OS X wasn't a full blown Unix under the hood with a full,
unadulterated complement of BSD utilities (those VERY SAME utilities
that make Ubuntu what it is) I wouldn't be using Linux!!! I cut my
teeth on OS X and _afterwards_ started playing with Linux (and, I've
been able to learn some things in Linux that I now use in Mac OS X).

What unifies most "open source" operating system users is not the
package management or the kernel, but the BSD utilities that underlie
every OSS and Unix OS that I have used to date (admittedly not that
many given that I've only played with a few Linuxes and NetBSD, and
originally learned Unix waaaay back when on my schools' (possessive
placed correctly) mach servers).

Anyway, these are semantics... time to move on to bigger and better things.

> Incidentally, there are a lot more
> Ubuntu-Windows dual booters than Ubuntu-Mac OS X

I don't think that's in question. I would be _very_ surprised if there
were more Ubuntu-Mac OS X dual booters.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list